Comparison of chemical components and antioxidant capacity of different <i>Echinacea</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcoholic extracts of the roots and leaves of three Echinacea species (E. purpurea, E. angustifolia and E. pallida) were analysed for the presence of characteristic chemicals by HPLC directly coupled to ultraviolet absorbance and electrospray mass spectrometric detectors. The method permitted rapid characterization and tentative identification of a large number of caffeoyl conjugates and alkamides in all the samples investigated. The roots of the three species differed markedly in their contents of characteristic compounds. Cichoric acid and verbascoside predominated in extracts of E. purpurea root whereas cynarine and dodeca-2E,4E,8Z,10Z/E-tetraenoic acid isobutylamide were the major chemicals characteristic of E. angustifolia root extracts. Echinacoside and 6-O-caffeoylechinacoside predominated in extracts of E. pallida roots. Characteristic alkamides were also examined by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and these compounds provided characteristic fragmentation patterns. Extracts of the roots and leaves of all three species were found to have antioxidant properties in a free radical scavenging assay and in a lipid peroxidation assay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".